january, then the republicans are going to say, see, we told you, even though they created the problem. >> david cay johnson, great to have you with us. that's "the ed show." "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, ed. thanks, man. thank you for staying with us for this hour. the acting director of the cia met for more than an hour with senators john mccain and lindsey graham along with the u.n. ambassador susan rice. the three senators emerged from the meeting saying they were honored by the fact that the cia director would meet with them, just three random senators and not in some official capacity testifying before committee on the hill. they appreciated the fact that the administration and the intelligence community was going to such lengths to e swaj their concerns to personally answer their questions about the libya attack in a closed-door meeting with the cia director himself, even though these are just three random senators.

the senators said their questions were answered as reasonably could be expected and they were willing to consider the president's nominee for secretary of state. they were throwing hear out those nominations fairly and without prejudice. yeah right. that's not the way it went. here's actually what happened after that meeting today. >> we're not going to consider this nomination until we get answers to our concerns. we're not even close to getting the basic answers. >> we're troubled by many of the answers we got. >> i'm more troubled today having met with the acting

director of the cia and ambassador rice. >> i have many more questions that need to be answered. >> you just met for more than an hour with the director of central intelligence and with the american about whose comments on a sunday show you say you have so many questions about and after a personal more than an hour-long, closed-door meeting just for you, who you run nothing, but just for you, just to answer your personal questions one-on-one, face to face with those two officials, all you can say, i have so many questions. isn't it starting to seem no matter what answers they are given, no matter what access they are given, they are going to keep saying they have more questions? here's one possibility about what maybe is really going on here. back in 2004, a guy named mitt romney was the governor of the state of massachusetts. if you don't remember who that is, he was a private equity guy from massachusetts.

back in 2004, he was in the middle of his one and only term as governor. the nominee for president was a senator from the same state, john kerry of massachusetts. if he had won the presidential election that year, his senate seat would have become open. so the governor of massachusetts, the republican, mitt romney, would have been able to appoint somebody to fill john kerry's senate seat. the massachusetts legislature totally dominated by democrats was cognizant that the governor would probably pick a republican to fill the seat if kerry got elected president. so the massachusetts state legislature decided to change the law. they changed the law so that only a special election could fill a vacant seat. until then, the seat would have to be empty. mitt romney tried to veto that new law. but the legislature overrode his veto, thereby stripping mitt romney of his power to choose a

replacement. that became a moot point because john kerry didn't win so he stayed on as senator. but then fast forward five years. 2009. new president barack obama, the country embroiled in a big debate over national health reform. those against it were against it to the point of rage. and those who wanted it were excited to be on the cusp of achieving something they had failed to achieve for decades. at the time the democrats had a majority in the united states senate, 60 seats is a filibuster proof super majority. that's enough to pass health reform. that majority for the democrats included senator ted kennedy. senator kennedy spent his career trying to pass health reform. it was his life's work. he had done it at the state level with that guy, mitt romney. he had led on the issue nationally for decades. it was his signature issue.

but before he was able to see health reform finally signed into law, senator ted kennedy lost his life to brain cancer. he died in august of 2009. when ted kennedy died, that meant that his seat did become empty in massachusetts and the democrats no longer had their 60-vote super majority, which they needed to pass health care. they were short one vote. knowing this might happen and this is really dramatic, knowing that this might happen, that might turn out this way, before he died, senator ted kennedy took a dramatic step to plan for the future of the health reform law he had worked for his whole life. this health reform law that his death might make impossible to pass, thinking about the affect that his death might have on the prospect of passing health reform, senator kennedy wrote a letter before he died urging that the governor of

massachusetts be allowed to fill an empty senate seat if one were to open up. and with mitt romney gone, the massachusetts senate legislature agreed. so they changed the rules again. so the new democratic governor, this man, could fill ted kennedy's seat with an interim office holder until a international election could be held, thereby restoring with this interim office holder the democrat's 60-vote margin. so at the last minute with that assist from the recently-departed champion of health reform, the democrats filled his seat with an interim senator and they squeaked the health reform bill through with zero republican votes and president obama signed it into law and now everybody calls it obama care. even the democrats call it obama care and they mean that in a good way. but then in the meantime, there was the small matter of the special election to elect somebody to take over the full

remaining portion of senator kennedy's term. it was a strange election to permanently fill ted kennedy's seat. there was one race on the ballot. the turnout was very low. it took place amid-a right wing backlash to the democrats passing health reform. tea party money and republican money from all over the country poured into the state of massachusetts and this unknown guy who happened to be a republican won that special election in january 2010. the next time massachusetts got a chance to reconsider that vote for scott brown was two and a half years later, and in that election, massachusetts frankly reverted to form and picked the democrat. they picked elizabeth warren to oust scott brown from that senate seat he held for less than a term. the elizabeth warren/scott brown race was pretty close by massachusetts standards. the margin in the senate race, this election, had the democrat winning by eight points, which sounds like a lot in a normal

state that would be a lot. but in the presidential race, the democrat won the presidential race by a heck of a lot more than 8 points. the democrat won by 23 points. and that is a fairly normal margin by which democrats beat republicans in the state of massachusetts. so given that, scott brown losing by only eight can be considered kind of a victory. it's at least pretty close. and after that loss, that scott brown loss, and than credibly-expensive and hard-fought race, immediately thereafter, republicans wanted to talk about how to get scott brown back to washington. and now today to them it seems so close they can taste it. because although john kerry is still a senator from massachusetts, after his very high-profile role in the obama campaign and speaking gig at the democratic national convention, after that john kerry's name was put forward as one possibility,

a leading possibility to succeed hillary clinton as secretary of state. that, of course, would result in him leaving his senate seat after all, which would mean there would be a temporary placement appointed and then there would have to be another special election to fill the rest of his term where scott brown would be the republican nominee again. which would be the best chance of putting a republican in the senate any time soon. which is why republicans got so excited when john kerry's name was floated. his name was floated along with one other name for that job. republican senators were very, very quick to point out that they really prefer john kerry to be the nominee for secretary of state. a ringing endorsement for john kerry from republicans in washington. because if john kerry becomes secretary of state there's going to be a special election for a

senate seat and there would be this chance that scott brown could be back in washington. so the republicans say emphatically and repeatedly and to any reporter that will listen, we prefer john kerry over susan rice for this job please. if john kerry doesn't get secretary of state and he's maybe going to get secretary of defense instead, i say woe be unto any feasible rival for that gig. somebody who might get that cabinet position ahead of him too. which republicans would please like to happen. and you know what? maybe this is nuts. maybe this is nuts. maybe this is way too simplistic. but maybe this makes more sense than the contention we're supposed to believe, which is that two active investigations, multiple briefings, a statement from the president, a statement from the u.n. ambassador, a closed-door, one-on-one meeting with that ambassador and with

the director of the cia have not given john mccain enough opportunity to ask whatever questions he wants to ask about remarks made on a sunday morning talk show two and a half months ago. maybe this makes more sense than that. joining us is somebody more level headed, andrea mitchell, host of "andrea mitchell reports." thank you for being here. >> i love your theories it makes as much sense as anything happening in washington about this potential nomination. >> i wanted you to be here in part because. i knew you would debunk my theory. which is born of frustration. could any of this just be the manifestation of these republican senators wanting john kerry in that seat? >> i'm not sure, but we've all been scratching our heads over theories because there really is a reason to investigate benghazi and that's to investigate why

after five attacks, not just intelligence warnings, but. attacks, why the consulate wasn't closed, why security wasn't beefed up. that's why a high-powered group ordered by hillary clinton under law is investigating by the state department. it's led by the former chairman of the joint chiefs and ambassador tom pickering. men of the highest caliber. they have a group that's going to report very soon. hillary clinton said she will not leave office before she personally presented it to congress, which she is mandated to do. so this is going to be an uncomfortable exit for secretary clinton because she's going to have to answer as to why the state department did not improve security. that's what presumably these senators would be investigating. so jay carney and others in the white house are trying to say, why what was said on sunday morning television which is not

under oath and not out of the old or new testaments, why that's become writ so large and why we're going through this with someone who has not yet been nominated. that's all rather curious. >> this is why i wanted to talk to you about it. this is the thing that's so frustrating. there are real things to talk about here. why this attack was able to go so far that it actually killed the u.s. ambassador. in terms of susan rice's predicament here, is she essentially just being caught up in a proxy war? her role in this, she had nothing to do with the security matter here. the picking on what happened on the sunday show, is it a proxy for something else? >> i asked that very question today of someone who has understood these things far better than i. former top official both at the nsc and state department.

he said he thinks it's a proxy war. maybe there's a personal issue between one or another of the senators and susan rice. she worked for john kerry in the '04 campaign. she was in the clinton administration as an assistant secretary for africa. her policies in africa and suh --sudan were controversial. there were other issues she's been involved in, but she's got a very big job at the u.n. there are meetings on thursday and a general assembly vote has been scheduled on palestinian statehood. a vote that's gripped the attention of all of the middle east and the middle east experts. and presumably, the u.n. ambassador ought to be someone well regarded around the world and is and now she's fighting for her future life in this very partisan atmosphere in washington. it's puzzling. the white house is sticking by her for now. she's not yet been nominated.

harry reid said they believe the committees in charge chaired by john kerry should be in charge of this and not members from other committees like homeland security and intelligence and armed services who are getting involved in this. but as you pointed out, none of the republican senators asking questions chair anything. it's becoming very personal and very puzzling indeed. >> one last sort of puzzling element of this to me. i just want your perspective because you have reported on these issues for so long. it seems remarkable to me to have the acting director of the cia personally accompanying susan rice to that meeting today. this is not formal testimony. there was no committee of lindsey graham and john mccain. they don't run anything there. is it unusual to have the leader of the cia personally involved like this? >> it was remarkable to me.

i described her on "nightly news" as her wing man. he was there to take the blame. and it did seem for an acting director of the cia to be put in that position rather extraordinary. he himself is under consideration to become the permanent cia director. there's a lot of cabinet shuffling that may take place. interesting people are talking about defense secretary as though the job was open. leon panetta might want to stay longer. and john kerry has not said he would be interested in that job. some said he would take it, but others closer to him say that's not the case. and no job has been offered. so this is -- let's just put it awkward. if she is nominated and they it fight this through, who is going to chair that committee? and that's john kerry. >> it's not quite krem linology because it's america, but it's getting closer.

andrea mitchell, thank you so much. great to have you here. >> thank you. elsewhere in republican land, john boehner was polishing his tough guy act today. what everybody else threatening economic disaster, he's now calling leverage. that moment in heroism is next. y with us, the more you save. and when you switch from another company to us, we even reward you for the time you spent there. genius. yeah, genius. you guys must have your own loyalty program, right? well, we have something. show her, tom. huh? you should see november! oh, yeah? giving you more. now that's progressive. call or click today. side by side so you get the same coverage, often for less. that's one smart board.

what else does it do, reverse gravity? [ laughs ] [ laughs ] [ whooshing ] tell me about it. why am i not going anywhere? you don't believe hard enough. a smarter way to shop around. now that's progressive. call or click today. [ grunting ]

for a professional cleansing device? join the counter revolution and switch to olay pro-x. get cleansing results as effective as a $200 system.

guaranteed or your money back. olay pro-x. i'm the most reasonable, responsible person here in washington.

the president knows this. he knows that he and i can work together. the election is over. now it's time to get to work. >> that was republican house speaker john boehner or as he e prefers to be known as it says in the celtic script, mr. responsible. that was two days after president obama won reelection. the president knows i'm the most reasonable and responsible guy in washington. you know in some ways john boehner has proven to be reasonable over the years. in june 2002 during george w. bush's first term in office, congressional republicans were faced with the issue of raising the nation's debt ceiling. that's the limit for how much the country can borrow to pay for things. no politician ever likes to raise the debt ceiling. nobody likes to think the country has to borrow money, but we do. so in june of 2002 when that vote came up, he voted yes. let's raise the debt ceiling.

it's the responsible thing to do. november 2004, john boehner voted to do it again under president bush to raise the debt ceiling. april 2005 at the start of bush's second term, john boehner votes in favor of raising the debt ceiling. so matter how opposed you might be to borrowing money, however, distasteful it is to you, everybody realizes as long as we are borrowing money, not raising the debt ceiling would be a very irresponsible thing to do. it would be a disaster for the country. everybody realizes that. mr. responsible himself, john boehner, realizes that. he says so. >> do you agree with administration officials and other economists that defaulting on the faith and credit of the united states would be a financial disaster? >> that would be a financial disaster not only for our country, but the worldwide economy. >> so defaulting on the credit is unacceptable to you? >> i don't think -- i don't

think it's a question that's even on the table. >> failing to raise the debt ceiling is not even on the table. that's what john boehner said last january. and yet just a few months later, with that voting record and with that stated understanding of how bad it would be for this country to not raise the debt ceiling, there was john boehner, leader of the congressional republicans, threatening to not raise the debt ceiling. threatening default after decades of voting to raise the debt ceiling, no questions asked under president bush, under president obama the republicans decided they were not going to do it anymore. right around this time last year, republicans threatened to let the country go into default unless president obama met their demands. they explicitly recognized it would cause harm, but they were happy to do that. they were willing to incur that harm. to inflict that harm on the country in order to get other stuff that they wanted. and in the end, those threats

from republicans did hurt the country. for the first time in our history, the united states because of that brinksmanship, lost our perfect aaa credit rating. the ratings agency downgraded the u.s. credit rating meaning we'd have to pay more interest on money we wanted to borrow. this was something that had never happened before in american history. this was not a natural occurrence. this was a choice that one side made to cause that problem after they decided that that problem should be avoided. here's how s&p explained their decision to downgrade. "the political brinksmanship highlights america's policymaking becoming less stable" the debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips over fiscal policy." republicans decided they were

going to use the full faith and credit of the united states of america as leverage for getting stuff they wanted. and it had concretely negative unprecedented consequences for us as a country. and now apparently this year, the lesson they have decided to take from that experience is we should do that again. it's amazing to me. this is from politico.com today. "president obama made a demand of house speaker john boehner near the end of their first meeting on the fiscal cliff earlier this month. raise the debt limit before year's end. boehner's response, there was a price for everything." a year after congressional republicans forced the downgrade of the u.s. credit rating, they are gearing up to do it all over again. speaker boehner told obama at the white house that the debt ceiling is "my leverage." despite having direct experience of how this plays out, despite using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip last year and

know what that did to the country, john boehner says he sees doing it again this year as his leverage. >> i'm the most reasonable, responsible person here in washington. the president know this. >> and i will destroy the american economy single handedly unless you give me something that i want. i will tank this nation's economy. thus wiping away tens of billions of dollars of american wealth by my own decision unless you give me what i want. because i'm the most reasonable man in washington. we can have disagreements on matters of policy. we can disagree on the tales we tell each other about how to get to the best outcomes for the country. we can even disagree about basic values about what kind of country we ought to be. but the thing you can generally assume about everybody who is in public service is that they are public servants. they want the country to be better off. no matter how you want to get there.

whether or not some people think you're wrong or some people think you're dumb or misinformed, there's a general assumption that if you're involved in politics that means that what you want is a good future for america. you're out to help america, not hurt america. hurting the country on purpose when you know that's what you're doing violates the most basic thing that we think we can assume about why people go into public service, why anybody would go into public service. none of the republicans are making these threats again. democrats are already starting to talk about maybe there are ways that president obama could just raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. if republicans are going to do this again, could president obama come up with a way to do this on his own through the executive branch? it's hard to believe that the president would try that, but it

is not more hard to believe than the fact he may be forced to try it because the republicans are holding the economy at gunpoint and seem perfectly willing to pull the trigger. i don't know how this is going to end this time, but wow, stay tuned.

here's a little clip and save moment for you from today's news. the one thing that republicans control in washington is the house of representatives. they have a majority there. today the republicans decided who they are putting in charge of all their committees in the house. this guy will heed the agriculture committee. this guy for appropriations. this guy for armed services. it this familiar fellow for budget. the republicans have picked and announced who is going to run all their committees in the house. in other words, they have put in charge everyone they have the power to put in charge of everything they are in charge of. and here they are. do you know anything about their

selections? here. here is the whole group of who the republicans picked to run their committees. they picked these 19 guys. notice anything? so, yeah, this is what you can clip and save for the next time someone in the beltway tells you how seriously the republican party is taking their diversity problem this year. clip and save, fellas. one serving of cereal, a baseball. and one serving of fruit, a tennis ball. - you know, both parties agree. our kids can be healthier... the more you know. like say, gas station sushi. cheap is good. and sushi, good. but cheap sushi, not so good. it's like that super-low rate on not enough car insurance. pretty sketchy. ♪ and then there are the good decisions.

like esurance. their coverage counselor tool helps you choose the right coverage for you at a great price. [ stomach growls ] without feeling queasy. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. now backed by allstate. click or call.

republican charlie crist ran for governor of florida the usual way. by eating possum at the local eating possum festival. by shaking a lot of hands. charlie crist knew florida and he knew florida politics right down to the last rescued sea turtle. shortly crist was a moderate republican and a proud member of the reality-based community as a republican. as florida governors go, governor crist was popular. he carried approval ratings of over 50%. but then something happened to florida governor charlie crist. something happened to his career. in february of 2009, in the

worst of the economic crisis with the nation shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs, charlie crist hugged the democratic president, he hugged president obama at an event in fort meyers and said that president obama's economic stimulus plan was going to be good for florida and good for the country. a few months after that, he announced instead of running for governor, he was going to make a bid for the senate. at the time the idea was to keep a republican in that senate seat. charlie crist was popular so he presumably could do that. he could hold that seat for the party. he jumped into the republican primary only to find he was running there against florida house speaker marco rubio, who was an anti-stimulus tea party candidate. mario rubio and his supporters wailed away on charlie crist for the hugging and for the stimulus. and it worked. crist dropped out rather than

get wallopped. he stayed in the race as an independent, but he got run over by rubio and rubio took the seat. that's how charlie crist got purged from the republican party. this was how his demise was explained. the hug that doomed crist's senate bid. charlie crist, you embraced the democrat. get out of the party, you are done. that's how the story has been told. maybe there's something else about charlie crist that's important to his legacy but has been forgotten. now that governor crist is no longer just that guy who got run out of the republican party, now that charlie crist is the speaking on behalf of president obama at the democratic convention, now that charlie crist is being mentioned as a top contender to replace the deeply-unpopular governor rick scott, get his old job back. maybe even as a democrat. now that all that is going on in

charlie crist's afterlife, another story is percolating in the florida press which attention should be paid. for this election, florida republicans cut the days for early voting almost by half. you have seen these pictures of what happened in the election. when the lines stretched from dawn until dawn, florida democrats and the league of women voters asked governor rick scott to extend the time by one day. the governor said no, let the people stand in line. back in 2008 when crist was governor, governor crist extended early voting. he saw the long lines of voters then and extended early voting. it was with a boost from early voting that barack obama won florida and won the white house. the common wisdom is that charlie got purged out for the crime of hugging president obama and supporting the stimulus as good for florida. maybe the story goes further back than that.

just before the election, joy reid reported this in south florida just before the election. >> you talked about charlie crist earlier. and the fact that he did sign that executive order extending voting hours that was the beginning of the end of his tenure in the republican party. because republicans in the state blamed crist for barack obama winning the state. >> in that other less-told, maybe scarily-remembered version of the story, republicans told themselves maybe it was charlie crist who cost them the party in 2008 when he allowed that early voting. maybe that was traitorist to the party. this year as the state's debacle by design, debacle on purpose unfolded with those eight-hour lines, a former chair of the florida republican party has been telling reporters that republicans cut early voting for had election not out of concerns about voter fraud like they said

but rather that are the hidden purpose of suppressing democratic voters so democrats couldn't win the election. when the former party chairman says that, they respond, don't listen to that guy. he's not a reliable source. he's under indictment for stealing money from the party, and so he is. but now the story is getting more interesting. more sources are coming forward. another source. an anonymous consultant telling that republicans specifically wanted to cut down on turnout by african-american voters. that's an anonymous source, grain of salt. but hey, wait, here's another name that's one you'll recognize. former governor charlie crist saying the republican party asked him when he was governor to reduce early voting so they could cut the democratic turnout. crist said in a telephone interview he did not recall conversations about early voting specifically targeting black voters, but it looked to me like that's what was being suggested and i didn't want them to go

there at all. wow. with all the caveats about charlie crist being in the republican dog house, but wow. at this point with what just happened in florida, charlie crist is a man with a story to tell. charlie crist is maybe more than any other in florida that has a story we should all be listening. he joins us for the interview, next.

former governor charlie crist is our guest for the interview, next.

on tuesday you're going to choose a path for our nation. down one road is extremism where roe vs. wade is overturned. that's the road sarah palin and mario rubio want to take us down. it's a dangerous road. the polls say i'm the only one who can stop them. if you're sick of the gridlock, join our fight for common sense. i'm charlie crist and i approve this message. don't forget to find me online nine on your ballots. >> urging voters to avoid gridlock during his run for senate. but notably having to close with a reminder he's going to be nine spots down on the ballot. because he was running as an independent. that race did not go his way. nobody thinks charlie crist's role in politics is over. especially not now.

joining us now for the interview tonight is the former republican governor of florida charlie crist who is now an independent. governor, thank you for being here. >> good to be with you, rachel. thank you. >> republicans have not stopped the process of purging moderation from their ranks. not even after their results from the last election. in the couple years since you fell victim to that process in your former party, how has it affected them? >> badly. i think that the notion of continuing to put forward people that are more extreme rather than moderate and to continue to push out people that want to talk about common sense solutions to problems that affects people's lives every single day is not a recipe for success, it's a recipe for disaster. if they continue on that path, that's what we're going to continue to see. less and less gains in elections and it's unfortunate for the republican party, but if that's

the path they decide to go down, that's the fate that they will enjoy. >> is this one of the things you see it happening in both parties. there's a mirror image it's happening on both sides or is this unique to the republican party that they are going through a process that the rest of american politics is not going through? >> it seems that way to me. i don't see the democrats doing this sort of purging, if you will. do you see the republicans doing it? i'm not really sure why. i don't know what has stimulated it. i suspect part of it began with the economic downturn. people get frustrated, they get depressed, unhappy. ones to blame are not going to be them. it's going to be some other entity or individual and it's got to be -- someone's got to be held accountable. whether in fact the person held accountable is the one who deserves it is almost meaningless, it doesn't matter.

but that's what's happening. and you know, reasonable people like richard lugar and others that did not survive a primary challenge, which would have happened to me if i would have stayed in the primary with senator rubio. and i wish him the best. i want him to do well because i want my state to do well. but i'm sorry about the fact that it seems that the republican party, or some in the republican party. but the leadership in the party, at least so far, seems bent on continuing down this path. that's unfortunate for our country. >> let me ask you about a policy matter that we have been reporting on. because of this election season. "the palm beach post" said during your term, they approached you as governor talking about changing early voting in order to suppress democratic voter turnout. how do those conversations go?

when republicans -- you were a republican at the time -- they were having those conversations. was it about doing it for partisan gain? >> there were indications that was occurring. they knew better than to confront me. it was well known how i felt about being more fair, more open, more inclusive and making sure that we had a government, a state government here in florida that would continue to reach out and work with democrats across the aisle at the time and work with all people. usually goes to somebody in my administration saying can you run this by the governor. whenever somebody would come to me with that kind of proposal, tell them not to waste their time. it will get vetoed. it's why i ended up signing the executive order to expand early voting hours in 2008. it really did displease a lot of republicans. but when you're elected governor

of your state, you're not elected governor of the republicans or the democrats. you're elected governor of the people and you have a duty and obligation, at least that's what i felt, to look out for all of the people and you're not supposed to be partisan when carrying out the right to vote, something people have fought and died for and i just felt partisan ship at that level was absolutely wrong. >> i feel like because of your position and where you were governor and because of how recently it was, i feel you're in this unique position to shed light for us about what's in between these two parallel tracks we've got. it seems what's going on with these restrictions on the ability to vote, putting these new hurdles, whether test shortening, early voting, restricting voter registration, it seems clear it's being done

for partisan purpose. then republicans say oh, no, it's only about voter fraud. it is about voting integrity. is it clear to you that is just bunk? just a story that's being told to cover up? >> it's crystal clear to me. you couldn't be more right in my humble opinion and you know, certainly, we can say this about all these roadblocks that are put in the way of people exercising their right to vote and we saw it in dramatic fashion this last election day in florida. my home state. how do you think that makes me and my fellow floridans feel when msnbc is able to call all these other states and the one that's lingering for so long is the sunshine state. there's a lot of good people here in florida and it's very discouraging to see that kind of black eye put on us when it's not necessary at all and the fact there's some massive fraud has the excuse of the red herring to do that, is

laughable. why else would you take 14 days of early voting and condense it down to eight days and make that more difficult or make it even harder for people to do absentee balloting here in florida? certainly, it's not voter encouragement to say the least. it is voter discouragement and i think absolutely the wrong thing to do is as i saidier, make this precious right more difficult to exercise than easier. this ought to be something we push as hard as we can to make sure that every floridan, every american has the tount vote their will and to exercise their right to elect their leaders in the most convenient way possible and people who stand in the way of doing that should be held accountable for doing so. it is unprincipled, wrong and shouldn't happen.

here's the irony. floridans took care of business. they stood in line even after the presidential election had been called nationally, they stayed in those lines because they wanted to cast that ballot. they were told in essence, this is what you cannot do. when you tell people that, they're like, really? who are you to tell me what to do, and so, they were determined. they became infuriated and they absolutely made up their mind they're going to exercise that precious right and cast that ballot no matter what and god bless them for it. >> charlie crist, former governor of florida, demonstrating tonight why republicans are so freaked out about you entering politics, sir. thank you very much for being with us. coming up, something you may not know about john boehner's office. today, it was clothing optional. that's next.

earlier this year, people r for the ethical treatment of animals staged a protest and that called for nudity. they stripped down and wrapped themselves up in plastic wrap. sweaty. also this year, a man at the airport in portland, oregon, decided to expose the unfairness of the security procedures there by exposing himself at the airport. arrested and charged with a misdemeanor and d.c., the world naked bike ride happens every year. activists take off their pants and hop on a bike to promote alternative energy and our dependence on standard issue underpants. but never before have their be naked protests in congress. today, the long worth congress

building protesting spending cuts on the far side of the fiscal cliff and what that would mean for aids funding specifically, there was a nude awakening. aids protesters marching into house speaker john boehner's office to give him the naked truth. boehner, boehner, don't be a sick. budget cuts will make us sick. the budget cuts are really rude, that's why we have to be so lewd. they were trying to lay bare the potential cuts for aids, the protests also served to put a naked spotlight on a major statement expected tomorrow from secretary of state hillary clinton. on the occasion of world aids day, secretary clinton is due to unveil an aids free generation. secretary clinton will make that announcement on thursday morning, but in advance of that

renewed commitment to fighting aids, this group, which is known for memorable protests any way, found a way to be more memorable today. one of the groups involved in today's event tweeted, watch naked aids activists take over boehner's office at congress. that was their tweet that you could watch them and you really could. you can watch the live stream video of naked protesters standing in the office of a highest ranking republican in the country and that does not happen often and because it was that guy's office, other report ers just happened toll milling about. one tweeted the event. seven nude people protesting events. police threatening to arrest protesters for indecent expo shoour if they don't clear out. in the end, there were seven people who were naked in john boehner's office, three were arrested.